On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 02:58:02PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 14:44, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 05/31/2011 06:41 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>
> >> We already have a search system that works reasonably well for the
> >> archives...
> >>
> >
> > I trust this weas a piece of sarcasm. I spoke to more than a few people at
> > pgcon and nobody had a good word to say about the search system on the
> > archives.
>
> Well, it's tsearch. And I've heard nobody say anything else than that
> it's *a lot* better than what we had before.
>
> But sure, it can probably be improved. But what people are then
> basically asying is that tsearch isn't good enough for searching.
> Which is too bad, but may be so, and in that case we need to fix
> *that*, rather than build Yet Another Service To Do The Same Thing
> Slightly Differently.
>
> --
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: http://www.hagander.net/
> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>
I do agree that the current archive search is much, much better than
the searching before the upgrade. I would be interested in taking a
look at some open source projects with a "good" search engine. Most
projects have search engines that are true exercises in frustration
by pulling either apparently everything or next to nothing and nothing
in between. If there is a good one to look at maybe we can do some
tweaking our search engine to improve it.
Regards,
Ken